1969 SUBMISSION
gaspipe26
Posts: 1,614 ✭✭✭
The first half of my 1969 submission has just come back and I am just in disbelief. A sea of 8's. I did get a few 9's, even a #636 Woodie Held that is a POP 1. This is my first submission in 2 months. What happened here? Did the standards change? I cant believe it. Do I have to submit 10 of every card to get one 9? I even sent in 20 or so 1975 SSPC's I got 16-9's. Not one 10. If you cant get a 10 with SSPC's thats bad.
0
Comments
Congratulations on the Woodie Held. Dan Markel had a similar experience several weeks ago.
Ron
I also just got a SSPC submission back, 9 of the 10 were 9's. The 8 I expected, but I thought there had to be a 10. I dont know.
gaspipe,
I have enjoyed your posts, and your dedication to the 1969 Topps set is very admirable. When I started on these boards, I didn't know anything about the 1969 set, and now I feel like I could have an intelligent conversation with someone about the history, variations, and the tough cards in this set. Your absence would be greatly missed.
Bernie
Currently collecting.....your guess is as good as mine.
You're not alone... I got whacked like I'd never been whacked before with the 72's I sent in from the May Fort Washington show. I was expecting 35% PSA 9's - what I got was 5% PSA 9's. I have 5 different PSA 7's that I can't figure why they didn't get 9 as well as about 20 PSA 8's. When the invoice popped - I was sick...
Sets - 1970, 1971 and 1972
Always looking for 1972 O-PEE-CHEE Baseball in PSA 9 or 10!
lynnfrank@earthlink.net
outerbankyank on eBay!
I have been grading with PSA since 1998 and in the 5 year span there has been a slight tighten then loosen seesaw effect all during that time frame. Its pretty hard to time it though, thats for sure.
I would hope that you would take a few deep breaths and stay with this pursuit. You are the WL king and your love and knowledge of this particular set is invaluable.
You are right. The cards in your PSA 8 holders are pristine. Many should be 9's.
RayB69Topps
One suggestion would be to just collect the 1969 set on your terms, not PSA's. Your experienced enough to know what a NM/MT vs. a Mint card is from 1969. In addition, your 100% correct in that there are definitely PSA 8's with greater eye appeal than some 9's or 10's in the 1969 set. You may find that your passion for the 1969 set will return. Look at Zardoz's PSA 9 Bando, the high bidder vowed to leave the 1969 market for good about 2 years ago and sold off his collection. Now, he shows up with a $80+ bid on a PSA 9 common from the 4th Series no less! If their is no urgency, you may want to hold off on selling. The market will probably get very soft soon.
Ron
Yes, Mitochondria is right. Everyone that I know (at least 7 people now) that submitted cards for the '60s Registry Special got a rude surprise including me. I turned in fifteen 1967s that were legitimate 9 candidates and only two graded 9. In the same submission I also expected to get seven or eight 9's for my '69 set and only got two. I was shocked. My best friend Toppsgun has an even more interesting story. I've forwarded this thread to him. If he doesn't reply, you can e-mail him through his eBay account (same ID).
Furthermore, you aren't the only one who's considering cutting way back on submissions. I am and so are several others. I just sent in 100 cards, but I could have very easily sent in 300. I'll let everyone know how I do on this next 100 which includes thirteen '69s that I need for my set. If it's more of the same, then I'm going to put my raw cards in storage for a long while until things straighten themselves out.
For most of the 1950s sets -- there have been key new grades in cards graded PSA 8. I hope that it is merely a coincidence -- so far, the limited number of cards I have seen look to be sharp for their grade, but I am also wary...
Most of us are advanced collectors/dealers and know when the standards have changed. I think I speak for most of us in saying that PSA owes it to their customers to maintain consistancy in their grading standards. There's a fine line between under grading and over grading but we need to tell them when the standards have changed significantly like they have recently. Like Bob said, it's really upsetting to get hammered on your grades, only to purchase cards on eBay that are very weak for their grade.
Before I submit, not only do I do the lighted magnifier thing, but I often have hundreds, if not thousands, of copies of the same card before I select about a dozen or so to send in for grading. Based on my extremely low submission percentage, I only submit 55/45 or better centering, with razor sharp corners. Not only do I think that they are all PSA 9 quality, but I think some are worthy of 10 status.
I always get 8's back, and I often cannot explain it. I also to this day have a very hard time differentiating between many PSA 9s and 10s. There are often strong 10s that are apparent -- but when it comes to cards from the 1980s, I often have difficulty in assessing the differences between a 9 and a 10, other than centering. (e.g., I don't see 1983 Donruss PSA 9s with corner wear, as I sometimes do with a 1955 Bowman card, for example).
I have also seen at least one vintage card that PSA rejected before come through with a strong PSA 9 on a recent submission.
I'm not complaining about my Mike Schmidt submission -- but I do not understand many of the 8s for the life of me. I often attribute it to the "gee -- we can't grade the whole invoice as PSA 9's -- so if there are ten of the same card all PSA 9 quality, we have to grade a few out at PSA 8"...
Ian
If PSA is cutting these people a deal, the whole thing is corrupt and you'd have to assume that they are cutting deals with basically everyone.
I'm not willing to go that far. I don't think that PSA killed Kennedy.
bruce
Website: http://www.brucemo.com
Email: brucemo@seanet.com
I'm not suggesting that PSA has something dubious going on with Grade & Trade. I just haven't ruled it out yet. It raises the same suspicions to me that occur with Discount Sports Limited, and their hoarde of PSA 10's from the 1960s and 1970s (isn't there a 1969 World Series card that DSL Sports got a run of something like 20 or 30 PSA 10's in a row?)
I'm just saying that it has raised a flag, and I am reserving my judgment for later. When I see a bunch of PSA 8's from the 1955 Bowman set, many of which previously had a total PSA 8 population of TWO, I just wonder a little bit. Again, I am reserving judgment -- and right now it is just a matter of insufficient information to make any good analysis.
I am a big PSA-supporter -- but they have been guilty of cutting people deals in the past (The David Hall Collection, the back-door network when Steve and Mike ran the place, etc.)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but this isn't the first time you've gone through those 4000 cards. Your first time through you would have picked the best of the best. Every time thereafter you dip into the well, you are going to be pulling the best from what is available. You do this a few times and although the cards you are pulling out are really nice, they just aren't going to be as nice as the ones that you first pulled out. They will look great, but you passed over them before for whatever reason. That reason perhaps is also what PSA is seeing. You're still going to get your 9's, but not at the same percentage as the first time through. Due to manufacturing quality, I'm sure that a large percentage of the 4000 cards have no chance at an 8. What is left over is your 8, 9, and 10 quality cards. Once you remove all of those solid 9's and 10's, they're gone and not replenished. You then have to hope for stretching some of those ultra-high end 8's into 9's. Perhaps this is the point where your box of 69's is at.
I'm sure everyone has their own answer to this.
Mike
<start subliminal text> If PSA [clearing throat very loud right now] gives me decent grades on this next submission, I'll be sure to let everyone know that there is no reason to hold back submitting cards, and I'll strongly encourage everyone to send in as many cards as possible for grading. <end subliminal text>
Sure, I'll let you know how I do.
Dan Markel
PSA Member #12855
I went through 4000 of over 45000 1969's I have. I might have up to 500 of 1 card. I also submitted only 100 of those 4000. I also know what a 9 looks like under a 10x light mag. I know how to grade a card. So it isnt a case of the best of the rest. Is that OK with you? Or should I send you 500-1969 #595 Lee Maye cards to prove it ? There is simply a problem with the consistency of PSA's grading, there always has been.
The cards I have have already been weeded of offcenters and lower grade cards. So my 1969 box is still very full. Happy now Wait til?
CU turns its lonely eyes to you
What's the you say, Mrs Robinson
Vargha bucks have left and gone away?
hey hey hey
hey hey hey
Thats funny, but please does he think I'm an idiot. That I keep searching the same cards over and over. I know I didnt go to college but I'm not a dope. I look at cards til I find 2 or 3 that should 9 then I stop and pick up there the next time. He always has something to say when it concerns me. I must have told him his not allowed to bid on my auctions or something like that in the past.
Not correct at all. I keep submitting on a steady basis regardless. If I wanted gift grades, I'd submit to PRO. My point is, if PSA doesn't maintain consistant grading standards, then why bother buying their service? I think it's important for people to highlight when there are problems (either having to submit alot of buybacks or seeing a drastic change in their submission results). I think it's pretty clear from the many posts on here that there has been a noticable tightening of their standards recently.
The point is not to encourage members to submit or not submit. It's a matter of highlighting to PSA that there's a problem so they can address it. I think any company would want to receive feedback from their customers about their quality of service. Ok, maybe these forums aren't the appropriate place to post it but maybe feedback forms should be made available to allow people to feedback to PSA on the level of service (grades, turnaround time, phone response, etc). If nobody says anything, how will PSA know there's a problem? They may find out when people like Bob and others quit submitting high quantities of cards and their business level falls off. I don't think they want to find out after they've already lost their customers.
By the way, I've been thinking seriously about seaking out recently graded 7's and 8's for regrading opportunities. Kindof like older vintage BGS when you could buy an 8 that was downgraded due to the surface not being shiny like a refractor and cross it over to a PSA 9. Some of these recent PSA 8s are absolute blazers.
That last post of mine was strictly "tongue and cheek" and the humor was not directed at you at all (It was directed at PSA). Sorry that you took it personally.
I agree with you 100%.
Bailey
First of all, let me say I mean no one any ill-will. I am not bashing anyone. I only wish to report factual information and my opinions.
I submitted three (3) 100-card invoices during the 60's special. I pulled the very best 78 cards out of my previously ungraded 1967 set. I pulled the top 161 cards out of my previously ungraded 1965 set. (NOTE: I did have about 60 cards in PSA 8 holders from 1965 I had purchased on/off ebay. I based my choice for raw '65s from the graded 8's.) I rounded out the group with 22 from 1968 vending and 34 from a recent 1963 find of low number, low pop cards. I expected 80% 8's and 15% 9's with the usual 5% disappointments. I based my selections on cards graded by PSA in the last 3-12 months. I mean these new submissions were "slam-dunk" 8's.
The 1967's came back 5% 9's, 80% 8's and 15% 7's. Only slightly less than I expected, but I'd live with it.
The 1968's came back 67% 9's and 33% 8's (one was diagonally miscut ever so slightly). Again, very respectable, but most were high population cards.
The 1965's came back one (1) 9, 24% 8's, 63% 7's, 11% 6's and (2) 5's (one had a spider crease on top of a the inner black border I missed, the other was an tilt-cut Berra I would have settled for 8 oc).
The 1963's came back 18% 8's, 73% 7's and 9% 6's.
I was shocked! I went back and pulled several cards from 1965 and 1963 that had been graded 8 in the past year, and none of which were as good as the ones just graded 7's. I called PSA to explain my situation. Peter told me, "Our grading standards have not changed. We've had the same graders grading vintage cards for years." He did offer to review 10 cards if I sent them back with 2 cards that were graded previously. He said, "I don't believe we could make that many grading mistakes, but I'd like nothing more than to prove my company wrong. If you are right and the grades warrant changing, you can send them all back."
I packaged up a box to send back to him. It included 10 (7's) +2 (8's) from 1965 and 10+2 from 1963. I took it to the post office on Saturday, July 6, but it was closed. I was scheduled to catch a plane on Monday, July 8....to Santa Ana, CA for a business trip. I took the box of cards with me.
When I got off the plane, I headed straight to PSA, albeit unannounced. (As an aside, I'm very impressed with their security and low profile. No hint of PSA, CU or any other sign of a building full of valuable cards. And locked up tighter than a drum. No inside windows, heavily tinted outside windows. I had to walk clear around the structure and through a Marine Corps station to find out where the security call box was!!) I asked security to ring Peter. Peter remembered me from my phone call, but said he thought I was mailing the cards. I explained my situation, so he said he would send someone down. I just wanted to drop the box off. It was still sealed up for mailing! Had they not taken it, I was headed to the post office in Santa Ana.
Danny came in. He was willing to listen and wanted look at the cards. (More than I expected right there on the spot.) In the middle of it, Peter came in and proceeded to lecture me about showing up unannounced, saying his manager wasn't too happy about this and reminding me a review of 10 cards was the original deal, not 20. My point was the problem wasn't limited to just one year. I had even brought along another 20 from 1963 just in case the review was going my way.
Well, after Peter left, Danny became more critical of the cards graded 7. He hesitatingly agreed to look at the second batch of '63s. He proceeded to point out minute, obscure flaws, some on the back of the card that were virtually invisible to the naked eye. You can imagine where this is headed. In his opinion, every "7" had a flaw that prevented reconsideration for an 8. When I countered with the two 8's graded earlier, he replied, "yes, but the overall eye appeal is much better" or "something like that doesn't bother me on that card." In my opinion, none of the 8's would grade 8 now. One '63 (easy 8 I thought) had been graded 7 previously (twice), I cracked out it out and this last time it was a 6! He could find nothing wrong with it through the case, but said it must have a crease somewhere. "Not worth cracking out if it's a 6." Unbelievable!
Still, he agreed to take 4 of the 40 cards back to the graders for a review. Two came back 8, two remained 7. Small victory for me. Large "gotcha" for PSA.
I thanked him for his time and left the building.
Later that day, I showed the whole shooting match to another 1963 collector who lives in Santa Ana. He was beside himself with angst. He told me many of my 7's were upgrades to 8's he had in his 1963 set. He agreed with me that the standards have changed. He doubts if 40% of his current set (8.11 on the Registry) would grade 8 today.
In conclusion, if any of you doubt that the standards have changed, pull out cards graded 6, 12, 18 months ago. Compare for yourself. But whatever you do, don't tell PSA. Let's keep it our little secret. I, for one, intend to vote with my pocketbook. Maybe enough of that and a 2-year baseball strike will give any doubters a clue.
Then I will correct you because you are wrong , it is the first time these cards were looked at.
It doesnt surprise me that they didnt change the grades. You could look at alot of cards in 8 or 9 and they can always find something to say is a problem. I really am considering stopping the whole think for awhile. I'm just really down on the whole thing. You pay good money to grade the cards, in most cases more than the card is really worth. You have the right to ask for consistency.
That's quite a story. I'm not surprised psa didn't change many because if they did then everyone would be asking for their grades to be changed. I wish that I had the funds to crack open 100 psa 9's from the 1960's and see what those 100 cards would end up as in a new submission. Do you think 50% would come back 9's? I don't know but I'm sure it would be less than 80%. Perhaps Dan would donate 100 psa 9's from his 1969 to get this project started.
wayne
We met at the Cleveland National last year. I remember the cards you are talking about I believe, if there the ones I saw there. If it was the set , the cards were very nice.
Regarding changing grades, which is the more honorable thing to do: leave the grades unchanged, defending to the death a previously staked out position, or admitting wrong and treating the customer with respect, regardless of the outcome, even if detrimental to workload, credibility, etc? Had PSA done the latter, they would have won a customer for a long, long time. Since they chose the former, they have walked away from a multi-thousand dollar customer who had every reasonable intention of becoming a multi-TEN-thousand dollar customer.
I was extremely happy with my collection before grading a single card. I can be equally happy now that I know I'm right. Since PSA is not currently contributing to my retirement plan, why should I continue to contribute to theirs?
Bring on the college football season, followed closely by college basketball.
Could you send me an email please? psa1965topps@yahoo.com
Thanks,
Brian
CU turns its lonely eyes to you
What's the you say, Mrs Robinson
Vargha bucks have left and gone away?
hey hey hey
hey hey hey
Groucho Marx
Always looking for 1957 Topps BB in PSA 9!
I feed myself, no one here feeds me least of all PSA. As Toppsgun put it, they dont contribute to my retirement fund. I also dont sell cards for a living, its a hobby. If I never sold another card it wouldnt change my lifestyle one bit.
Wonderful story from a very reliable source. Of course, I knew that the PSA standards were getting a bit more ridiculous. This is obvious to anyone who has purchased a PSA 8 card from Dan Markel or gaspipe26. Your point on the set meeting "your" standards is right on the money. While 3rd party grading has definitely elevated the confidence that consumers have in buying high grade cards, it also relies on the 3rd party graders making a profit. The "Great Divide" between PSA 8's and PSA 9's in the market has caused the PSA corporation some problems. There is only so many "Pokemon" and "Star Wars" cards you can grade to pick up the profit margin.
The "grading specials" are nice in that they attract more collectors and enable PSA to create a larger base of cards to "validate" the importance of the range of grades. I had hoped that the large range within a given grade (i.e. weak "8" vs. strong "8") would be determined by the decerning eye of the collector community and that prices would reflect that. This is not happening because of the great price difference between various grades, particularly PSA 8's and PSA 9's.
I like others do not need PSA for my retirement plan. However, the third party grading model is all that we have today to perserve the value of our collections.
One suggestion would be to formulate a "recognized" collector's group that could serve as a liason to carry our voice to the third party grading companies as well as hear their perspectives. Three issues that come to mind is 1) More consistent grading and 2) Awareness of Collectors/Dealers who threaten PSA if they don't receive favorable grades. The second issue is important because if large submitters are effecting the integrity of the grading process by threatening PSA with its support, then collectors need to know about this! 3) Large Submitter Favoritism in grading. The collecting community needs to be able to confront this preception one on one with the third party grading system.
We would have to have a significant enrollment and unified voice to be effective. You don't bring up issues or demands until you have the power to implement a response. However, I would strongly recommend that we continue to work to support third party grading despite its pitfalls. I don't want to go back to the past!
Ron
Great post from you and from "toppsgun". I believe that the collecting community would be remiss in not addressing these concerns to PSA. PSA has had problems in the past with long turnaround times and poor customer service and made improvements in both areas. Let's hope they can review these issues and implement better consistancy in their grading standards.
This is one of the key reasons I cut down a lot of my business with them at the end of 2000, and looked for other alternatives. It came to a point where I could NOT tell what grades my own cards would receive. To me, that was just a very inconsistant business model, to make or lose money at the whim of the graders.
<< <i>2) Awareness of Collectors/Dealers who threaten PSA if they don't receive favorable grades. The second issue is important because if large submitters are effecting the integrity of the grading process by threatening PSA with its support, then collectors need to know about this! >>
As above, I don't know how you're ever going to get around all conflicts of interests. Simply put, I vote with my pocketbook. If PSA is going to hammer me on grades, I won't grade with them.
When I say hammer, I mean it - all the horror stories written here I've experienced TEN FOLD. I remember submitting 800 '87 Topps McGwires, and getting 100 9s, 500 8s, and 200 lesser. Zero 10s. Cost $6400 in grading at the time. And yes, they were nice - 50+ 10s would have been very reasonable, and 75%+ 9s. That's one of very many HUGE disasters.
On the flip side, if they are consistant in their grading, I can make educated and informed decisions on what to do. I think that's all any of us really want from a grading company - to have a good idea what we can expect. If I decide it can be profitable, great. If not, that's also OK - move on with life. But this carrot and stick approach doesn't work for me, and I'm not going to tolerate it. I've spent 3M with PSA in the last three years, and still have no idea what to expect on any given submission...
I sent in a group for review. In my humble opinion, they were undergraded. In addition, I enclosed 2 cards that were clearly overgraded. I was informed by telephone that none were "bumped" up in grade.............but the overgrades will be bought by PSA. I guess that I'm good at spotting overgrades, but lousy at those that are undergraded.
<< <i>I've spent 3M with PSA in the last three years >>
SOL! Ouch! Thats some serious sugar. But that also tells me if you spent that type of money and are disappointed and moved to other grading companies. Then PSA if anything doesn't cater to the big dealer. Usually, thats all you tend to hear is that the big guys get the breaks. You just proved that they are "tough" with everybody...jay
Website: http://www.qualitycards.com
Last year I back tracked the serial numbers of a "major dealer" who had just posted about 20 to 30 vintage PSA 9's on e-Bay. I lasted until close to 400 cards. What I found was that this particular dealer should fire whoever was submitting those cards. For instance, there were multiple O/C's, MC's as well as, 5's and 6's. It was if the "vending lots" were submitted without any form of screening. For instance, there were 30 #62's submitted in a role, etc. (as an example). There certainly was no preferential treatment in grading in this one example. However, there is a "preception" of favoritism that should be addressed if it begins weighing on the shoulders of the hobby.
On a different note, some collectors reported that they were being asked to speak with "Steve Rocchi" (back when he was there) for approval before sending in "bulk" shipments (1000+) for a cheaper rate. I never knew what the purpose was for this procedure and I became very suspicious about it. I mean why did submitters need to speak with Mr. Rocchi before submitting? There should be a set rate for everyone, right? Did he intend in advising people not to send in 1000+ of 1988 Topps cards?
Ron